Should the old guard of AWARE just accept defeat and bow out gracefully?
April 15th, 2009 | 
Author: 
Written by Darkness & Missy Dotty of the brotherhood / AWARE has a brand new leadership. They were voted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the charter governing associations. The matter should be cut and dried, right?
Apparently, not – far from it, it seems. As many of the ex AWARE committee members are calling for a special assembly to table a vote of no confidence?
Is that right? I am not asking you whether that’s legally right; rather is it morally right to throw out the ballot box and resort to the battering ram – when one doesn’t get one’s way?
Coming to think of it – why is it so hard for the ex committee members of AWARE to accept outcome of the vote? I am well aware, a few issues have been bandied around; suggesting even the manner in which the new exco committee came into power may have been staged managed. Others have even labeled it as an outright case of the moral right asserting its Christian values on all of us – I shan’t go into those thorny areas; only because they have been discussed at length in certain quarters of blog-o-sphere.
My preoccupation with AWARE centers on the question whether we should all respect the system which produced the new leadership – or should we instead circumvent the result produced by the system by leveraging on the broader question of “fairness?”
I guess if we boil down the entire debate in AWARE; all we are really asking whether we should keep to the rule book (system) or plumb for the seat of the pants approach? (fairness)
One problem with reducing the whole argument to just two competing set pieces – is it assumes the “best solution” lies somewhere between these two dichotomies; observation suggest it may not – for starters, all of us know even the best system can be flawed sometimes; in some cases blindly following it may even produce undesirable aberrations? Like when soldiers are asked by their commanding officers to obey orders to further genocide and ethnic cleansing. The same goes for the seat of the pants approach; that was why systems were original developed – to rein in the human condition that typically produces subjective results.
Having said that, notions of fairness alone should never be allowed to substitute the system entirely; as when we talk about fairness in the social context it refers mainly to values and moral principles such as equality between humans and impartiality when solving conflicts. Fairness is thus often associated with a genuine concern for other people’s well-being – the problem is one man’s idea of fairness, may well be another’s idea of tyranny.
So we are back to square one again; as neither fairness or the system alone can guarantee us all a satisfactory outcome to placate the interest of two or more sides – one reason why I felt it appropriate and necessary to differentiate the competing elements between the system and fairness – is to illustrate how both camps really pitch their case too vigorously; as both “solutions” by themselves don’t really offer a coherent and logical way to winnow the good from the bad.
My main gripe with fairness usurping the system (what should have been the outcome for AWARE, instead of the actual result) lies in the failing common to all arguments colored with perceptions of fairness – observation suggest: what’s fair is really a matter that lies in the eye of the beholder. Hence, what people believe to be fair may very well depend on what people want to believe to be fair. It is therefore likely that when confronted with a disagreement, people will have the tendency to evaluate those solutions as fair that happen to benefit themselves rather reflecting the concerns of the broader interest.
To paraphrase judgments about fairness are invariably egocentric (self centered) decision and they turn exclusively on the way people perceive the social situations that they encounter.
This inescapable hubris in human perception has notable consequences for people’s fairness judgments. And it can even be argued that was why humans originally came out with systems in the first place – to gut out the human condition – and mitigate our natural predilection to veer towards subjectivity. Instead of relying on gut feel or instincts to make decisions – systems, be they laws, regulations, standard operational procedures or even a rule book help us all to keep focused: instead of intuiting fear, good or bad; we are instead compelled to stick to what’s relevant and cogent.
This is not to say, there is no place for ‘genuine’ morality to play any possible role in fairness judgments. Most certainly scope for intervention must and should be provisioned to nourish every system and prevent it from fossilizing and calcifying - that’s why, we regularly hired humans to preside over murder cases instead of outsourcing them to computers. Only these drivers of change should emerge from within the integrity of the established system and not from outside the system by leveraging let’s say on the power of lunatic fringe.
My feel remains on the balance of probabilities while people often display a genuine effort to act fairly in the face of moral dilemmas, and may even claim to act in the best interest of others. What cannot be denied is, such “genuine morality” can only successfully shape fairness judgments in situations where people are truly independent and objective evaluators, who have no interest at stake in the situation at hand.
That unfortunately, does not appear to be the case with the former members of AWARE – as its conceivable the old guard may even harbor a vested interest to do and say the things, they do to shape our understanding on this impasse. They may even harbor a personal moral outlook which may even be at odds with the moral majority? Consequently on the balance of probabilities, their fairness-based reasoning is likely to be influenced by egocentrism and personal experiences as well e.g sexual orientation etc, presumably without them even being very much aware of it.
Personal views may thus be a very potent factor to explain why people can differ so immensely in what solutions to social problems they consider to be fair or unfair to prevent them from finding a happy middle ground to seek resolution to the AWARE impasse; as such if I had to plumb – I’ve still support the new exco in AWARE – only because against the system and fairness; the former must surely be the lesser of two evils – granted, it’s not perfect, but throw it out and what are we really left with?
Dotty
The Brotherhood Press 2009
Check out another Brotherhood story about AWARE
Further updates on AWARE
- Glass Castle Blog: Anti-LGBTQ is anti-feminist
- Musings : Some comments on the Aware thing.
- geraldgiam.sg: A government out of order
- Fresh Brainz: Update: AWARE Exco Remains Silent
- TOC: 150 call for vote of no confidence
Posted in Snippets
38 Responses to “Should the old guard of AWARE just accept defeat and bow out gracefully?”
Loading ...
Alex Tan Allan Ooi AWARE Chee Soon Juan Chiam See Tong Claire Lee David Widjaja DBS Dr Allan Ooi Dr Silviu Ionescu Dr Vivian Balakrishnan Foyce Le Xuan highnote5 Hong Lim Park Jack Lin Xinli Jack Neo Jack Neo affair Jack Neo scandal Josie Lau Josie Lau Meng Lee Lee Kuan Yew Lehman brothers Lighthouse Evangelism MAS minibonds Miss Singapore World NTU stabbing PAP Pastor Rony Tan Ris Low Romanian diplomat in hit-and-run Rony Tan S-League silviu ionescu Singapore Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games Tan Kin Lian Thio Su Mien Tiger Woods affair Tong Kok Wai Top 8 Vivian Balakrishnan Wendy Chong Y O G Youth Olympic Games
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
“is it morally right to throw out the ballot box and resorting to the battering ram?”
That is a simplistic and shallow way of looking at any ballot.
If any party should feel that the results of the ballot were not correct, assuming that the entity is well structured and organised, there would be established ways of contesting the outcome.
IF the call for a EOGM is within their constitution, and IF the call for a vote of no confidence is within these constitutional rights, then by all means, exercise those rights. A good constitution would require that any contest be supported by a true majority, and that due process would be instituted to allow that true majority to voice their opinion.
It is not immoral to contest an outcome that you do not agree with. It is only immoral if you do so by unconstitutional means.
I see that monkeysee has basically said what I had wanted to say, but there’s no harm in backing him/her up.
Re: “Alternatively, should we just respect whatever result the system produces?”
The system includes the EOGM as well as the ability to call for a no confidence vote.
When the story broke, the blogosphere was filled with loser hetero men justifying the hostile takeover as legal; these losers just couldn’t mask the fact that they have an axe to grind with feminism in general and AWARE in particular.
Why not call for doing what is legally provided for in AWARE’a constitution?
excuse me dotty, your article is hardly fair view of what is happening in AWARE. The meeting is yet to be held, and the new exco has not said anything.
Also, your own stand is shown clearly – “Facts suggest not only do they harbor their own personal moral outlook which may even be at odds with the moral majority. But on the balance of probabilities, their fairness-based reasoning is likely to be influenced by egocentrism and personal experiences as well such as their sexual orientation etc, presumably without them even being very much aware of it. ”
So WP is anti gay? is it?
“Personal views may thus be a very potent factor to explain why people can differ so immensely in what solutions to social problems they consider to be fair or unfair to even find a happy middle ground to seek resolution to the AWARE impasse; as such if I had to plumb – I’ve still support the new exco in AWARE – only because against the system and fairness; the former is surely the lesser of two evils.”
So what you are saying, dotty, is that you support following the system (which is to accept the voting system and results) as people are inherently incapable of being fair, since everyone is bound to be influenced by their own personal interests, views and as you suggest, probably without their own knowledge, their sexual orientation.
So the system is the lesser of the two evils huh?
Ironic, isn’t it, since WP is all about fighting the system, or as some like to refer to as the matrix we live in.
The system always protects the people who created it. And the operative here is “people”. Rules, laws are never fair. Much less systems.
Your argument about following the system/rules to decide what’s fair actually helps the old guards, as they are exercising their right to an EOGM, which is written in that system.
I am disappointed about WP publishing such an article which tries to sound fair but really just using it to masks their own prejudice.
Or probably I just hadn’t read it properly, since it’s quite too “chim” for me you know.
Your ‘moral majority’ is neiter moral nor the majority.
Clarification: WP has no stance on the AWARE issue. Neither is WP pro or anti-gay.
Disclaimer: The views of our guest columnists do not represent ours.The Brotherhood Press is given complete autonomy to write and publish whatever they see fit. No topic is taboo to us.
I am not anti-gay per se, I do have a couple of friends who are.
But I think it goes against the law of nature to be attracted to the same sex as the couple is subsequently not able to procreate, which is what all living creatures should be doing to extend their gene pool.
Of course, this may also be viewed, to a certain degree, as self-culling of a species, which, seeing the explosive growth of humans, isnt all that bad a thing.
The few articles posted here about AWARE so far seem to draw parallelism with a political system – that if the opposition “accidentally” wins due to loopholes in the system, it’s just too bad for the ruling party, and they should stick to the vote, rather than try to overturn the result.
But they also suggest that if such a scenario happens, it is the ruling party’s own doing, as it should have prevented such a scenario from even happening in the first place, by use of law.
In other words the articles seem to be indirectly encouraging the ruling party to erect laws (like GRC system) to prevent freak results from happening, without regard for fair play.
It was AWARE’s old guard who put the laws in place, not the new guard.
By going against the outcome of what they have been endorsing and using through the years, they are making a mockery out of themselves.
Like saying, “If our rules work for us, it’s fine. If it doesn’t, what rules?”
Hey, old guard, stand by your rules, otherwise, there goes your integrity.
And new guard, many will be watching you.
Sounds like a classic case of “if the rules work, that’s fine. If it doesnt work, then we have every right to rewrite it, till it produces OUR desired results.” This is how crooks play the game. I am glad the brotherhood was the only one that had the wisdom to stay the line. I am glad darkness had the wisdom to choose wisely and even saw through this wayang. I for one was very suspicious when the ST wrote the first article about aware and how they deliberately slanted the facts to serve one minority. I asked myself why. Now I know. When will this people realize aware is not a private country club? When will they realize it is an organization to serve the real needs of women, not some gay militant platform?
On a side note. I am heartened and sad to see ppl like darkness have finally realized the wisdom. The BP cannot be an all male outfit forever. In the past, this one trackism has not only given the BP a very hard and unmalleable persona. That may have worked in gaming or during the early days when the net was the wild wild west, where it pays to be aggresive, but as I have written to darkness several times, in the long term, that can only work against BP in the new blogosphere.
I am sad as I also know. This means the rest are also preparing his way to say good bye. In brotherhood culture it is taboo for any leader to overstay his term. They even have a bad word for this. They see it as sure sign of weakness and bad leadership. As the system is supposed to be greater than the sum of the individual parts. In nomadic and tribal society no man can be allowed to be indispensable. If he does not go. The system will kick him out. This is sad.
Based on their statement, released along with the news reports, I don’t think they care much about the unfounded allegations against them because their focus is on helping women in as many ways as possible. It is not just about rights but helping them survive and live well.
So you gays, lesbians, rights activists etc can rant on about their religious background and whatever sinister intentions they have, but ultimately, it is what they do and the results will show.
Admin, you keep claiming the articles written by the brotherhood does not represent WP stance and that they can pretty much write what they want. Please loh.
It’s like saying sentosa is self governing.
The brotherhood is obviously part of WP. And pray may I ask, if someday the brotherhood starts carrying article that are in favor of PAP will you still allow it?
Every article in your site stands for something. And if you want to dissociate yourself from it’s better for you to make an announcement at the end of the article.
Most of the articles about AWARE you “carry” though “not representing WP stance as they are neither pro nor anti” is strangely in favor of one side.
Hmm, saying people who do not procreate are unnatural is kind of harsh don’t you think. Lot’s of hetero couples don’t breed either, so are they unnatural too?
And saying that homosexuals are self culling is funny, because guess where they come from, heterosexual breeding.
And all gay examples can be found in the animal kingdom.
Do you know that people vehemently disagreed with Darwin about his theory of evolution. Some still do. Some believe the world to have been created a few thousands years ago.
So tell me again what’s this natural laws you talk?
Admin, you keep claiming the articles written by the brotherhood does not represent WP stance and that they can pretty much write what they want. Please loh.
It’s like saying sentosa is self governing.
The brotherhood is obviously part of WP. And pray may I ask, if someday the brotherhood starts carrying article that are in favor of PAP will you still allow it?
Every article in your site stands for something. And if you want to dissociate yourself from it it’s better for you to make an announcement at the end of the article.
Most of the articles about AWARE you “carry” though are “not representing WP stance as they are neither pro nor anti” is strangely in favor of one side.
Hmm, admin, the article was re-edited and added onto right. If so it’s polite and honest to say where the article was edited you know. Especially since a large chunk of it is different.
anonymouser: “When will they realize it is an organization to serve the real needs of women, not some gay militant platform?”
exactly!
May I just make a few recommendations here BP?
(1) Start a new aggregation site.
(2) The post here should be mirrored in ekunaba, strangelands, just stuff & all the SLF’s No1 to No7.
(3) It is hard to find you here, if one happens to be a new reader. Impossible even.
(4) Never forget to do 1 to 3.
Thanks
I am not sad darkness is leaving. I have felt it in my bones for a while. Darkness may be young, but he was wise. To the Ottomans (gulf gamers), he was known as the sadaherin, the learned one. To the Russians, they called him Ruslan Steveza, the little one who fights with his wits like a giant. To hong kong gamers, we called him seng muk chai, little smart alec.
After the Ascension wars somewhere around the age of steel. It was he who came up with this cruel tribal law. He said, something to the effect. If a man cannot walk away from power. Then he has yet to gain mastery over the self. He is at best a child. At worst a slave to an illusion.
One day when everyone is asleep he will pick up his bag and walk over the hill and that will be the end of the man called darkness. He will go back to where he whence came from nowhere, nothingness or whatever.
Indeed these are strange folk. And even many gamers dont understand their weird ways.
Hahahaha you actually believe it is possible to get the brotherhood press to write what you want????? Hey, you go ahead and try lah. Be my guest. Why do you think they have so many running battles with their own readership? They even have to co-opt troublemakers like dotty?
Can you imagine the admin of wp going up to lets say a character like darkness and asking him to write an article this or that way? Hahahahaha.
You are really funny. Go on prove me wrong. I dare you.
As for this whole AWARE thing. It is very simple. There was a set of rules. They played by the rules and won. Now these sour grapes are talking about sending in the army?????????? Are you kidding me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you want to read about mad dog ranting then go and read what Yawning bread wrote. Or better still go to toc and see how they gave those crazies bandwidth. I see a well balance report here. One based on reason, I may not agree with them, but it is well argued. Its not perfect as dotty is not so street wise and doesnt have the same confidence as darkness. So this article doesnt seem to have the punch and kung fu kick. However, it is a good innings nonetheless. All I see here is an independent mind that is able to winnow truth from lies. At least they didnt fall for the ST jedi mind trick like 99% of blogosphere.
Hi there,
The Brotherhood is not part of wayangparty, just like James Gomez and all our guest columnists. We welcome views from across the political spectrum, even pro-PAP ones. The reason why you don’t read them here is that there are no pro-PAP bloggers on our team.
If we start to moderate articles from our guest columnists, censor them or insist they become part of us, we will never be able to reach where we are today.
We exist to give a voice to ordinary Singaporeans. For those of you who disagree with the Brotherhood, you are free to rebut them here. Your comments will not be moderated or censored by us.
The authors have combined lazy logic with rambling rhetoric to produce a distinctly mediocre article.
They have sought to characterise the vote of no confidence as an act of disrespect towards the system. What they fail to grasp is that the vote of no confidence is part of the system itself. It serves as a check and balance against corrupt, incompetent or otherwise unsuitable leadership.
Its usefulness is precisely demonstrated in a situation like this where a bunch of unknowns have invaded a long-established group and successfully spread their tentacles over the power structure.
Disregarding for now the Christian fundamentalist bent of the new leaders of AWARE, the fact remains that their actions thus far have been devious and sinister, and provide ample justification for a vote of no confidence.
Consider how they have staged their power grab. Instead of honestly building up a reputation in the organisation and winning the respect of the existing members, they chose to seize leadership by catching the old guard unawares. They stealthily infiltrated the organisation since the beginning of this year, and then came out in full force during the elections so as to overwhelm by numbers.
But that is not all. Consider also the fact that the new leadership has been disquietingly reticent on their plans and direction for AWARE. If they honestly wanted to serve AWARE (instead of hijacking it for their private, nefarious ends), they would have immediately explained their agenda and attempted to assure the old members that their motives are pure. This they have not done.
The experiences of the old members who have interacted with the new leadership also provide great cause for concern. To take one example, the Straits Times described Caris Lim (one of the two old members remaining on the AWARE Exco) as “red-eyed and voice trembling” when she walked out the latest Exco meeting. Can you blame people for inferring that something dastardly is going on behind the closed doors of AWARE’s new leadership?
In conclusion, the vote of no confidence caters precisely for situations like this, and the members who tabled it were upholding the letter and spirit of the system. To accuse them of trying to “usurp” the system is both fallacious and facile. And the rest of the article is nothing more than a convoluted mess of pseudo-psychology aimed at muddying the waters.
Thanks Bystander.
I’ve been saying the same thing to these hetero male losers who justified the raids as done legally. The EGM and the tabling of the no confidence vote are just as equally legal.
They cannot mask the fact that they what they truly harbour is an overthrow of feminism.
In this, all of them are guilty of the PAP’s chronic intolerance of difference in political creed, even while they make their pious protestations of support for the opposition whose political creed is …. erm … different.
while ago, wayang wrote about thailand’s riotic need to abide by democratic principles, failure of which would lead to mess.
so what next after the vote of no confidence? surely the brave new ones are not just going to sit there like the AGM was just whimsical fun. guess we can only wait and see…
but what does AWARE really stand for? its mission statement writes ‘ gender equality for all’. yet the straits times report (10 april) on the fiasco wrote
“Older members were keen to know if the newcomers shared Aware’s vision and values, including equality for all regardless of race, religion or sexuality.”
i am beginning to think that the origin of the chaos is this lack of self-AWAREness of what exactly AWARE is about. which, in a way, reflects an underlying current of this lack of definition between self and collective, and is a pretty wondrous topic to dwell on if you consider the interplay of these two concepts in the light of a government who doesn’t like sore thumbs.
shy of wording convolutions, i shall play these ideas in my head for now.
Bystander
wrote
“Disregarding for now the Christian fundamentalist bent of the new leaders of AWARE, the fact remains that their actions thus far have been devious and sinister, and provide ample justification for a vote of no confidence.”
besides their fundamentalist contortions, what else is devious and sinister in this thunder and lightning affair? that if the brave new ones were really interested in genuine change, they should have opted for a subsuming and evolutionary approach?
(hmmm….)
athome
wrote
“But I think it goes against the law of nature to be attracted to the same sex as the couple is subsequently not able to procreate, which is what all living creatures should be doing to extend their gene pool.”
What scientists in our featured discipline normally do is they study the activity of the relevant living things– cells, their conglomerations, right up to our ancestors– and they come up with axioms especially when their certainty is given weight by the vast amount of time and great variety of living things under their study. So Darwin says, quoting my neuroscientist forum correspondent, ‘if it works well to perpetuate itself, then it’s a good hit.’
As the transmission of knowledge across generations (after the birth of language) become more embedded into the evolution system, especially so in the present context, Richard Dawkins (or whoever) came up with the idea of memes, in a way highlighting that the playing field is a bit changed and maybe that axiom too. For it’s not important if you die and fail to propagate, but if your ideas you happen to pass around happen to be ‘good’, they get to replicate via others’ minds.
Regardless, questions arise: throughout the vast span of time right up till our present, has the relationship between learning (since it became possible) and genetics change? How hardwired are we? And how much can we change it during our life time without having to go through sperm-egg lottery? What is the relationship between genes and memes? If memetic transmission is the replacing motive then how much of that of genetic is still in the game?
Is it fair to still take Darwin’s as a basis for the present time, since the length of time which lends weight to that axiom may not be as heavy since the quality of time must also be considered. If we consider the number of innovations (whether it be the development of cell walls as protection, or the invention of printing press, television, ‘deep blue’, ipod,etc.), then certainly our present time may be as ‘heavy’ if not more.
simply put, procreation is not a law of nature, not even a theory, if we are thinking with exciting and refreshed neurons that is.
robox
wrote
“They cannot mask the fact that they what they truly harbour is an overthrow of feminism.
In this, all of them are guilty of the PAP’s chronic intolerance of difference in political creed, even while they make their pious protestations of support for the opposition whose political creed is …. erm … different.”
1. what has anti-gayism got to do with anti-feminism? if you don’t like gays means you don’t like girls?
2. there are two issues here. stance on gayism and election rules. please do not confound them.
if the opposition raided and overthrew the ruling party, assuming conditions are right and all that improbable stuff, would you say ‘ cannot lah, must play by the rules lah.’
and in the AWARE case, they actually played by the rules. so your issue would then be ‘ cannot lah, they are in opposite stance as us leh.’
which leads to , so for the opposition to take over, they have to be in the same stance with the ruling party?
is that what you are implying?
as a disclaimer, i am not anti-gay, in fact, i embrace humans of all kind, shape, color, religion and psychology. if there’s anything i am against, if i have to state my stance as is the fad, i am anti-sloppy-thinking, whether in others or myself.
NEVER, it is not the culture. Not their fault though, they are only learning from our govt leadership.
About oppositions.
I can finally see why SDP has been the least successful of the APs despite his sincere efforts. It is their emphasis on human rights, which on its own is noble and worthy of support.
But, having seen how the issue of human rights can be exploited by activists who are interested only in their own rights, it might have scared many away.
Given their propensity to make mountains out of molehills, if SDP gets into parliament, imagine what these activists can do through a friendly proxy.
This is well-meaning feedback to SDP from a voter’s perspective. Dr Chee should re-think or define his human rights stance more clearly.
Bystander on Fri, 17th Apr 2009 12:23 am
“They have sought to characterise the vote of no confidence as an act of disrespect towards the system. What they fail to grasp is that the vote of no confidence is part of the system itself.”
Yes, I agree, but just look at:
(a) How did the strait times present the facts when they “reported” on the swap out of the leadership. Was that impartial reporting?
(b) Look how personalities like Yawning Bread and Glass Castle responded to this matter. How did the whole issue of the Christian right become blown up?
(3) Look again at the innuendo’s is bandied around. Someone is red eyed. Some has walked out. Some is disillusioned etc. What images do you think the press is trying to paint? I think it is fair to say, they are trying to portray it as something very sinister.
And when you put the vote of no confidence against 1 2 and 3 how can you not say, it is not one of the same reality.
[...] New Adventures of Josie and the Pussycats – Singapore Life and Times: Toasted – The Wayang Party: Should the old guard of AWARE just accept defeat and bow out gracefully? – TOC: DBS “disappointed” with Josie Lau’s disregard for staff Code of Conduct – The Wayang [...]
All I know is this. If there is a set of rules. And if someone wins. Then give it a chance. If you tell me, after a reasonable period of evaluation and it is found this new exco members are a bunch of no hopers. Then I say by all means go ahead with the vote of no confidence.
But if they table a vote of confidence a few days after the the old have been booted out. Then I think most people will ask of the old guard, what are you trying to do here?
What remains ironical is when DBS is coming up with stupid employee can and cannot do guidelines. This is what AWARE should be doing to rightly further the cause of women, but instead, they all seem to be more interested in cat fighting.
The old and new both deserve to go the dogs I think. Better still outsource it to the United Nations.
[...] are now cut-off and cannot rely on AWARE support possibly because the new guard is in-charged now. Hell has no fury like a woman scorned. The new AWARE exco is getting a front row experience on that idiom. What’s good for the goose [...]
Homos does what they do best, whining and yelling to get their way. They want democracy yet when democracy is upheld against their agenda, they scream their heads off.
Look at California’s Proposition 8. Californians voted “NO” to homo-marriages democratically. What did the homos do? They swamp into churches, streets blocking traffic and halting commerce. They singled out individuals who donated money to organizations that support Prop8 and pressure their companies to fire them (Sound familiar?). If you need an example of what homos will do to Singapore, look no further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
Guys, can you tell me which opposition is pro-family and will not kowtow to homo pressure? From TOC to the many local “political” blogs, it looks like if I am pro-opposition, I have to be pro-homo. If that is the case then I’m sorry, I’ll vote PAP anyday. I would rather sacrifice my civil rights and have my morals than to have freedom without morals.
I have never met the leader of the brotherhood before. I have never had the privilege to met him in person. All I have is an old image of him snapped on board the les enfants du paradis, his flagship as he prepared for the greatest invasion in cyber history. The ancession wars. I fought in that war beside the forces of darkness. I was a lowly navigator on board a freighter, the californian. That was many years ago.
This is all I have of the father of the game in the virtual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYHvt-bkOd4
I think he was was reviewing the battle plans.
That was 600 years ago. It would be nice, if we could all get together for old times sake.
I think there are a couple of thousand of us who feel the same. You see we heard he is leaving. We would like to pay our respects to him. That I feel is not too much to ask as a loyal soldier who once fought for the tri-color flag of the brotherhood.
Long live the brotherhood!
If you are intolerant of the sexual minorities in society, what makes you think people should be tolerant of political minorities like most of you people here are???
If you are intolerant of the sexual minorities in society, what makes you think people should be tolerant of political minorities like most of you people here are???
“They have sought to characterise the vote of no confidence as an act of disrespect towards the system. What they fail to grasp is that the vote of no confidence is part of the system itself.”
Yes, the vote of no confidence is part of the system, but the reason for evoking this tool is a mockery to the voting system.
What is the reason? Has the new exco done anything yet? Have they been proven incompetent, out of line? No. Only baseless accusations were hurled at them based on their background.
By the same logic then one can also say the gays have an evil intention, that is to exterminate all christians because they are anti-christianity, and do not subscribe to christian values.
This so-called reason is nothing but hot air speculation, paranoia and hysteria.
Oh, they were sneaky and therefore have ulterior motives. Sorry, they followed the rules of the system. If that is sneaky, then blame it on the ones who put the system in place.
And as I have highlighted elsewhere, after the old guard has condemned the new guard for allegedly recruiting new members to “overthrow” them, the old guard themselves are employing the same strategy they condemned.
Where is the integrity?
By the way, AWARE does not belong to the old guard. Anyone is entitled to head AWARE.
And you know what, somewhere along the line, the old guard seems to have digressed from the original mission of AWARE by replacing the “gender” in “gender equality” with “sexuality”.
“AWARE is Singapore’s leading advocacy group dedicated to promoting gender equality.”
“Our mission is to identify areas for improvement in gender equality, encourage positive change, and support women in realising their highest potential.”
http://www.aware.org.sg/?page_id=17
Where oh where is the word “sexuality”? Now, that makes me wonder why.
More:
“…they are gains which benefit families and society as a whole.”
“families” see? What is wrong with being pro-family?